(30-04-2013 12:38 PM)TrulyX Wrote: let us just randomly make things up that fall in line with our personally views on issues.

At least you admit it.

Im having trouble tracking down anything showing legal precedence on the 1st amendment being a collective only right.

I'm still wondering why reading is such a hard task.

In one of my posts I specifically said (I'll quote): "There are implications of individual rights".

That means that it can be concluded that those rights can be applied to individuals, especially in certain cases. I never said that this was a "collective only", exclusive, deal, precluding the possibility of an individual being determined to have a certain right.

All I'm saying is that when you go to church, it is usually with other people. You don't assemble by yourself and successfully petition with only the endorsement of yourself. Your speech only matters if other people can hear it and take it into account. The press is only good for providing information to a society. You are not going to win a war, as a single man, versus a full army. You are not going to establish a republican form of government and make laws by yourself. The general welfare and common defense is not going to war or providing resources to a single, even if powerful, individual. And when you provide guidelines to the federal justice system, that is broad and applicable the the entire federal justice system.

I'm saying that if you were worried about individual rights, it would be a good idea to express explicit sentiments toward that goal, not sentiments that imply that the complete opposite is your concern. You might want to actually use the word individual, or a synonym. You might want to add in something about equal protection of laws that applied to any individual, regardless of perceived differences, and that applied to all individuals and to all states and levels of governments, not just to one level. And you might not want to undermined the attempt more by limiting the role of one level, especially in fixing problems, while granting almost endless amount of authority in power, with no restrictions on infringing rights, to the other levels.

You do realize that one of the catastrophic consequences from the sacrifice needed and motivation toward successfully establishing a union by means of a Constitution was the Civil War?

The Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, protected individual rights just about as much as Fox News is a great example of the success of free-speech-- you can make something up so it sounds cool, but ultimately the whole notion is just foolish.

The Bill of Rights was just a set of basic, fundamental, democratic principles aimed exclusively at only one level of government, to encourage the acceptance of a document by the public i.e. it was one big political move. It had some great principles in it, but you can look at reality to see how that has worked.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell

Im having trouble tracking down anything showing legal precedence on the 1st amendment being a collective only right.

I'm still wondering why reading is such a hard task.

In one of my posts I specifically said (I'll quote): "There are implications of individual rights".

That means that it can be concluded that those rights can be applied to individuals, especially in certain cases. I never said that this was a "collective only", exclusive, deal, precluding the possibility of an individual being determined to have a certain right.

All I'm saying is that when you go to church, it is usually with other people. You don't assemble by yourself and successfully petition with only the endorsement of yourself. Your speech only matters if other people can hear it and take it into account. The press is only good for providing information to a society. You are not going to win a war, as a single man, versus a full army. You are not going to establish a republican form of government and make laws by yourself. The general welfare and common defense is not going to war or providing resources to a single, even if powerful, individual. And when you provide guidelines to the federal justice system, that is broad and applicable the the entire federal justice system.

I'm saying that if you were worried about individual rights, it would be a good idea to express explicit sentiments toward that goal, not sentiments that imply that the complete opposite is your concern. You might want to actually use the word individual, or a synonym. You might want to add in something about equal protection of laws that applied to any individual, regardless of perceived differences, and that applied to all individuals and to all states and levels of governments, not just to one level. And you might not want to undermined the attempt more by limiting the role of one level, especially in fixing problems, while granting almost endless amount of authority in power, with no restrictions on infringing rights, to the other levels.

You do realize that one of the catastrophic consequences from the sacrifice needed and motivation toward successfully establishing a union by means of a Constitution was the Civil War?

The Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, protected individual rights just about as much as Fox News is a great example of the success of free-speech-- you can make something up so it sounds cool, but ultimately the whole notion is just foolish.

The Bill of Rights was just a set of basic, fundamental, democratic principles aimed exclusively at only one level of government, to encourage the acceptance of a document by the public i.e. it was one big political move. It had some great principles in it, but you can look at reality to see how that has worked.

There is a true issue when someone can't recognize that some words can have multiple meanings at the same time.

The Thinking Atheist, is a title that applies the same logic. TTA is a group, and the individuals that comprise it are all thinking atheists (at least in title, but perhaps not always in practice. )

The people of the US in the Bill of Rights, is the collective group, and the individual. These are not mutually exclusive.

(01-05-2013 09:36 AM)TrulyX Wrote: The Bill of Rights was just a set of basic, fundamental, democratic principles aimed exclusively at only one level of government, to encourage the acceptance of a document by the public i.e. it was one big political move. It had some great principles in it, but you can look at reality to see how that has worked.

You are not in agreement with the Supreme Court. The rights granted to the people have been repeatedly interpreted as rights of individuals.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

No, I want to hear what Truly X interprets by "the people", please explain. You are wrong, but I want to hear your reasoning anyhow. Seems pretty cut and dry to me, but you have somehow managed to find some ambiguity in it. Who has less rights than others?

(01-05-2013 09:36 AM)TrulyX Wrote: The Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, protected individual rights just about as much as Fox News is a great example of the success of free-speech-- you can make something up so it sounds cool, but ultimately the whole notion is just foolish.

The Bill of Rights was just a set of basic, fundamental, democratic principles aimed exclusively at only one level of government, to encourage the acceptance of a document by the public i.e. it was one big political move. It had some great principles in it, but you can look at reality to see how that has worked.

Point taken on the duality of words, but I really can't stomach the sense of liberal self hate in relation to the bill of rights.